Do you realize we're in the best performance car age ....ever!

Some people refuse to believe that most of today's performance cars would simply bury typical performance cars from the so-called "Muscle Car" era.

Typical Muscle cars back then accelerated about as hard as the current Thunderbird (around 7 seconds, give or take). Some of the more rare engines were very quick, but typically cost as much as a base version of the donor car, and were made in such rare quanity that finding them is alot like finding Elvis and Bigfoot. By today's standards, an Impala SS with top power should cost around $40,000.



Has anyone stopped to think about the cars available on the market today or coming on line within the next year or so? We have cars) and trucks that are simply off the charts in performance & price compared to the good old days! The very vehicles that we take for granted or call slow today.

Consider:

The '06 V8 Impala SS
Pontiac Grand Prix GTP
Cobalt SS
SRT-4
Ram SRT-10
Mustang GT
Mustang Shelby Cobra
Ford Adrinlin
Chrysler 300C & SRT8
Magnum Hemi & SRT8
Chgarger RT, Daytona, & SRT8
CTSV
STSV
XLRV
Malibu & Maxx SS

All are much quicker in comparison to muscle cars of the 60s.

And to think, this is only straching the surface.

Yup. I've thought about that several times. Hopefully we don't hit another 1973, though. ;)

:p

What is a ford adrinlin? I've never heard of it.

I've thought about that fact many times.:cool:

No C6, GTO, or Viper on the list ?

Yeah i think the same thing about 5 times a day how bad it would be to go back intime with are new cars and run the older cars.I just hope the gas thing doesnt happen again so all we need to do it get rid of all the gas hogin suvs

No, because it's not in some ways. Yes, performance is great today, but it was great back then for the time also just the same. You can't compare 40 years of advancements to then really. Today there's not enough excitement or variey or even affordable prices like there was then. Not enough competitors or bargain performance, not enough flash. Not to mention a coupe market that's currently too little to be the biggest and most exciting thing out there like it was before. Today it's good numbers-wise and such, but the best overall? Never, not yet anyway.

..... Consider:

The '06 V8 Impala SS
Pontiac Grand Prix GTP
Cobalt SS
SRT-4
Ram SRT-10
Mustang GT
Mustang Shelby Cobra
Ford Adrinlin
Chrysler 300C & SRT8
Magnum Hemi & SRT8
Chgarger RT, Daytona, & SRT8
CTSV
STSV
XLRV
Malibu & Maxx SS......

And yet not ONE that I would or even if I did like them, could afford to own......not one. :death:

Well note that he said performance car era. And you can only base that on...performance. And honestly I have to disagree with the afforability thing. While you can't go in and find many true performers under 20k brand new but there are plenty of things that are easily affordable to be found on the used car lot.

And I've been saying exactly this for a while. We are in a really good place for performance. All of the big three American automakers either have some hellishly fast vehicles out and they have more coming.
SVT,SRT, and SS those are initials whenever people my age(mid 20s) hit their 50s will be very fondly remembered. I used to listen to my uncle and my dad's friends talking about their cars and how fast they were and about how cool they were. I used to wonder if I'd ever experience anything like that and thankfully the answer is yes. But unlike them I won't be referring to my car in past tense and regret I ever got rid of it. Whatever I buy in the next couple of years I'm keeping no matter what. So that way my son won't have to just listen to me talking about days past...he'll be able to experience it first hand.

And yet not ONE that I would or even if I did like them, could afford to own......not one. :death:


Can't afford a Malibu or Cobalt SS? :rolleyes: The prices seems within reason to me.

And yet not ONE that I would or even if I did like them, could afford to own......not one. :death:
You can't afford a 20k SRT-4, Ion Redline, or SS Cobalt?

Ironically, we are also living in the age of the dullest cars ever.

You can't afford a 20k SRT-4, Ion Redline, or SS Cobalt?

Doug, and I, can't afford the ones we want ...like a new Z06. :D

I'm working on my wife to "want" a Trailblazer SS next spring. Then we should be set until the next Camaro comes out.

Doug, and I, can't afford the ones we want ...like a new Z06. :D

I'm working on my wife to "want" a Trailblazer SS next spring. Then we should be set until the next Camaro comes out.
yea, i don't want a modded economy car i'd rather have a sports car. *sigh*

No, because it's not in some ways. Yes, performance is great today, but it was great back then for the time also just the same. You can't compare 40 years of advancements to then really. Today there's not enough excitement or variey or even affordable prices like there was then. Not enough competitors or bargain performance, not enough flash. Not to mention a coupe market that's currently too little to be the biggest and most exciting thing out there like it was before. Today it's good numbers-wise and such, but the best overall? Never, not yet anyway.

I feel there's greater variety today from a performance standpoint, unless you are limiting things to coupe. In that instance, I'd have to agree. If a GTO, Mustang, or a G35 coupe don't do it for ya, it's probally not going to get done. :(

But taking into account 40 years of advancements, we are still in a golden age of performance. Examples?

GTO:
*Top performance typically model cost twice as much as a well equpted Tempest or an entry level Corvette. Todays model is 25% cheaper than a Vette and about 15% over the average new car sold today.
*Old GTOs typically got 10mpg or less. Today's get 25 mpg or more.
*Old GTOs had no more than about 300-325hp stock by today's SAE measurements with a 400 ci V8. Todays has 400 from 368 ci.
*Old GTOs top out at around 130mph max on a good day downhill. Today's GTO is governed to 155.

More evidence of advancements?

Consider a SRT4 and a Chevy Cobalt SS both can give a serious smackdown to any stock muscle car, yet is priced where it can be bought by virturally anyone who wants one. No restrictions & so surcharges, and both can also corner and stop....really really well.

Still not convinced?

By 1960s standards, the new Mustang GT has roughly 420+ horsepower out of just 281 cubic inches. Ditto the LS3 that's going to be powering the front wheels of next year's Impala SS and Grand Prix GTP. By 1960s standards, the new LS2 GTO is churning out well in excess of 520 gross horsepower.

Going from 0-60 in under 6 seconds is always going to be hellishly quick. The problem now is that there's so many cars doing this (as opposed to the 60s when everything else seemed to run 9-10 seconds to 60mph), that it's not impressive anymore.

True, today's cars are invisible next to a 60s muscle car, but cars of that era were also invisible in their time as well. Especially when you consider that back then you had far fewer models selling in far greater numbers than cars today. :)

I agree to an extent, but like I said I'm not talking numbers particularly because it depends on when exactly you're talking. At this time we could have 600HP factory cars and it will still never have the excitement or all-out competitive feeling of years before. People will remember all the boring FWD cars with designation misuse before they remember the 4 or so "cool" cars which might qualify as that from recent times. Things will hopefully change for the better as I guess it seems like it's going in that direction, but who knows, and especially with GM.

It isn't a matter of being able to afford most of these soul-less cars...hell, that's the easy part.....it's that I wouldn't own one if it were given to me....buzz boxes and imports don't attract me.

Only the CTS-V or the C6 are on my wish list, but at around $50k....I'll have to pass.

Only the GTO would cause me to think about it, but until the 8 year old styling is fixed, I'll pass on it too.....

True car designers are a thing of the past.....vanilla, copy-cat, unispired boxes on wheels are all we are given...with a VERY few exceptions.

The C6, Sky & the new A&S Caddies are the only things that seem to have come from true car guys.....Ford is simply repeating itself.

Good post. :thumb: That's also what I'm trying to say.

I agree to an extent, but like I said I'm not talking numbers particularly because it depends on when exactly you're talking. At this time we could have 600HP factory cars and it will still never have the excitement or all-out competitive feeling of years before. People will remember all the boring FWD cars with designation misuse before they remember the 4 or so "cool" cars which might qualify as that from recent times. Things will hopefully change for the better as I guess it seems like it's going in that direction, but who knows, and especially with GM.


I see what you mean. But I have a hard time believing that even a 600 horse Buick LeCrosse wouldn't get you intrigued, especially if it cost 30 grand. ;)

I'll agree with the opinion that today's cars lack the flash of designs of the 60s or even the 70s. The cars that I think represent that era in modern incarnation are the 300, the Mustang, the Montego, just about all Cadillacs, next years Ford 500, and to a lesser extent, the current Grand Prix.

but back to the original premise, we have some amazingly quick and fast cars today. :D

Excellent post Guy. However, although there is plenty of awesome performance available, there's nothing out there that is enough of a "must have" that'll I'll consider replacing my 95 Z28 with.

What is a ford adrinlin? I've never heard of it.

This
http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2005-Ford-Sport-Trac-Adrenaline-Concept.htm

It isn't a matter of being able to afford most of these soul-less cars...hell, that's the easy part.....it's that I wouldn't own one if it were given to me....buzz boxes and imports don't attract me.

Only the CTS-V or the C6 are on my wish list, but at around $50k....I'll have to pass.

Only the GTO would cause me to think about it, but until the 8 year old styling is fixed, I'll pass on it too.....

True car designers are a thing of the past.....vanilla, copy-cat, unispired boxes on wheels are all we are given...with a VERY few exceptions.

The C6, Sky & the new A&S Caddies are the only things that seem to have come from true car guys.....Ford is simply repeating itself.
Ford is repeating themselves but they are drawing from an era that you admit is stylistically superior. I dunno I guess since I was raised in an era of "don't look at me" styling the cars that have been listed for the most part don't bother me.
The Mustang,Magnum,300c,SRT-8 Charger,Sky,Solstice,Lightning(and Adrenalin)...
I like the way they look. They do NOT look like every other cookie cutter car on the road. They certainly do not perform like them. There may not be as many uniquely styled cars out there as there was in say 64-65 but then again cars in general just aren't styled all that well. However if you notice cars are getting a little more unique(American cars at least) and usually the higher performance versions are getting even more unique.

To be honest this is how I look at it. Which would I rather have? A car that is boring looking AND slow or a car that's boring looking but at least is fast?

Some people refuse to believe that most of today's performance cars would simply bury typical performance cars from the so-called "Muscle Car" era.

Very true in most cases. But the "Muscle Cars" of old had/have something the new ones do not and never will IMHO and that is street creed and timeless designs that spoke cool. :D

http://images8.fotki.com/v116/photos/4/42075/1406799/00032-vi.jpg

It just seems like older car guys are stuck in the 60's and to them nothing will ever be faster then those cars. even with proof they still don't want to believe it. and some older cars cars looked awsome and some were just ugly and that goes for todays ars too.

and imo we will have a gas crunch again it's just a matter of time. i mean look at the gas prices $2.40 for premium and it goes up from there. and almost everyone on this board has to use premium. and truthfully how many of you on this board has seen the gas prices and (said damn thats crazy how high prices are i won't be driving my car as much as i want to this summer)

it's the 60's all over again (i mean just look at the new mustang :D )

Gas prices don't bother me. I would rather poke my eyes out than not drive my cars because of gas prices! :D

I would agree with that. I love the old cars too, but it is certainly a great time for cars. They cost a bit more, and you get a whole lot more. Ok the styling is not as nice as it once was, but these cars do everything else better. They even sip much less fuel, and with DoD on the horizon, it will get even better once that is perfected. I think if they make sure there is a base model 5th gen with more of a smaller V8 and maybe DoD, come in around the Mustang GT price or a little under they could have the potential to take away some of mustang sales. However if they repeat the 4th gen fiasco of only the loaded with every option models on the lots we're doomed. Offer more than one engine option, and start to advertise the cars like 2nd & 3rd gens. It seems like things are just getting started again. With the gas prices the way they are going some of the muscle is a little slow selling, this should make the dealers ripe to deal! If they try to rook you go to another dealer.

And to think, this is only straching the surface.

Yeah, because that doesn't even include all of the capable import performance cars offered today. Hard to talk about this being the golden era without mentioning cars like WRX, STi, Evo, G35, 350Z, RX8...

It is a grand time for performance cars. Of course, it would just be nice to see one more entry.

Consider:

The '06 V8 Impala SS
Pontiac Grand Prix GTP
Cobalt SS
SRT-4
Ram SRT-10
Mustang GT
Mustang Shelby Cobra
Ford Adrinlin
Chrysler 300C & SRT8
Magnum Hemi & SRT8
Chgarger RT, Daytona, & SRT8
CTSV
STSV
XLRV
Malibu & Maxx SS


I think you left off the GTO, WRX (STI), M3, M5, C6, Z06, Viper, SSR, Nissan 350Z & RX-8 just to name a few...

I think you left off the GTO, WRX (STI), M3, M5, C6, Z06, Viper, SSR, Nissan 350Z & RX-8 just to name a few...


But he did put the Malibu SS:lol: and Malibu Maxx SS:lol: at the end of the list. I'd argue that neither car belongs on a list of performance cars but at least he put them at the end of the list.

In the "Muscle car era", there was a Camaro. In today's Performance era, there isn't. Sadly, today's performance era cannot and will never be as cool as it was back then because of it. And I didn't even live back then.

But I admire the fact that you're trying to cheer us all up, Guy. :thumb:

But he did put the Malibu SS:lol: and Malibu Maxx SS:lol: at the end of the list. I'd argue that neither car belongs on a list of performance cars but at least he put them at the end of the list.

Yeah, because 240hp combined with 3,200 lbs is really crappy, you know? Jackass...

Anyway, add the MC SS to that list :D That is the first GM car since the '02 F bodies that I look at and say I WANT :D I can picture a black one now with a couple Borla tips rumbling out the back. Yummy...

Its too bad I like my GP so much I don't want to part with it...

Ironically, we are also living in the age of the dullest cars ever.

Some of the ugliest vehicles ever are being proiduced now. I don't know which is uglier, the element or that new Scion piece of crap I keep seeing everywhere.

It can't possibly get as bad as the late 70s-the late 80s.

That time period had THE ugliest cars ever forced upon the world come out.
It's why we still have ugly cars today. It looks like the car industry at least is TRYING to do something different and attractive. But back then it was just box on wheels then next box on wheels.

Consider a SRT4 and a Chevy Cobalt SS both can give a serious smackdown to any stock muscle car, yet is priced where it can be bought by virturally anyone who wants one. No restrictions & so surcharges, and both can also corner and stop....really really well.

Dude, someone said to you, here I'll give you a brand new SRT4 or this restored factory stock 1970 Chevelle 454. I'm sure you would take that "fast" SRT4. ;)

It can't possibly get as bad as the late 70s-the late 80s.

That time period had THE ugliest cars ever forced upon the world come out.
It's why we still have ugly cars today. It looks like the car industry at least is TRYING to do something different and attractive. But back then it was just box on wheels then next box on wheels.


Amen brother! I believe that period of time is why many people still to this day believe domestics are crap.

True, today's cars are invisible next to a 60s muscle car, but cars of that era were also invisible in their time as well. Especially when you consider that back then you had far fewer models selling in far greater numbers than cars today.

Ah.. I don't know how old your are, but I can ASSURE you that muscle cars of the time were NOT invisible.

Dude, someone said to you, here I'll give you a brand new SRT4 or this restored factory stock 1970 Chevelle 454. I'm sure you would take that "fast" SRT4. ;)


Uh... the Chevelle 454SS was a low 13sec car @ 110 on slippery tires, so I don't think there'll be any lightly modded SRT-4s (let alone a stock new one) outrunning it.

Uh... the Chevelle 454SS was a low 13sec car @ 110 on slippery tires, so I don't think there'll be any lightly modded SRT-4s (let alone a stock new one) outrunning it.

Uh.. you missed my point apparently. Uh...

Uh.. you missed my point apparently. Uh...


UH... no. You quite genuinely sounded like someone saying "the Chevelle SS is the the car to have even though it's slower(in your mind)"

Maybe shoulda picked a different car... like a GTO for the value comparison. ;)

It seems like performance, or should I say power was much more widely available back then. You could take just about any model and upgrade to a bigger more powerful V8. Of course you can do that now with V6s but you are limited to 200hp or 240hp, refering to the 3800.

These ARE good times! for the first time in years, the new millineum has seemed to awaken the Giants of Detroit, who quickly made up ground on the import competition, and are showing NO SIGNS of letting up!
The automobile seems to be being reinvented, from the ground up; new fuels, processes, frames, platforms and much more. Many of these 4 and 6cylinder cars DO run as fast as many V8's of the past,(being born in the '60's I can remember some) ofcourse there are a few Muscle Cars that were VERY FAST, but technology IS bridging the gaps.
I'm excited, and ofcourse dissapointed at some, in light of the FUN returning to cars, have elected to remove FUN cars from their line up(Camaro/Trans AM for ex.) possibly 2 of the most fun cars for under $30K ever made, the pony cars. The new Mustang however, is still here, and selling ALL they can make...and for under $25K I can see why. V8 Rumble, 300+ ponies, classic lines, handling, fuel economy, wide range of colors trims etc......
.....A vision of good things to come!...love or hate, IT HAS AN UNMISTAKEABLE PRESENSE!...
(Come on GM, Gamble BIG, WIN BIG!...Inspire us!)
And even tho I love to see cars playing kick ball, I'd much rather see people ENJOYING their car taking them to the beach, ball game, church etc...Real life, Real cars, Real Fun!!!!!

The number of sub-400+ hp trucks and Suv's ALONE is a good indicator of this era. We have like 7 of them.
*TB SS
*Jeep GC SRT-8
*Ford adrenaline
*SRT-10 Ram
*Porsche Cayenne turbo
*Land Rover Range Rover Sport S/c'd
*new AMG M-class

That's not even including the rumored S/c'd 6.0 vortec Silverado SS or any Lightning (assuming Ford still has one in the plans).

And given the overall performance of todays cars (more than just straight only), it's no surprise that this is the best performance era to date.

It seems like performance, or should I say power was much more widely available back then. You could take just about any model and upgrade to a bigger more powerful V8. Of course you can do that now with V6s but you are limited to 200hp or 240hp, refering to the 3800.

While that is true, if referring to the 60's, you had a choppy idle, short gearing and gas was what, 30 cents a gallon, and required leaded gas for most of the hi-po stuff? Technology has given us the capability to have a car like the Z06, 127 traps with perfect idle and awesome fuel economy. To compare the 70's cars, those weren't performance oriented at ALL. Most of the cars had low 8 or high 7s compression, and made 160 HP. They were LUCKY to run 90mph in the 1/4. Now you can buy a car off the showroom floor and go that fast in the 1/8th. Prices have gone up, but so have safety requirements. I'm hesitant to say emissions are more strict, because without that, I wonder if the OEMS would have worried about fuel economy at all. I think its a GREAT time in performance. Hell, you can buy a new GTO with as much power as a cam'd LT1, and the LT1 is only 14 years old.

The 60's were a differnet era in the now distant past.. You can't really compare the two..

BTW, how much did a top of a line 1970 Chevelle SS 454 with the LS6 cost back then? Compared to the base model?

I'm excited, and of course dissapointed at some, in light of the FUN returning to cars, have elected to remove FUN cars from their line up(Camaro/Trans AM for ex.) possibly 2 of the most fun cars for under $30K ever made, the pony cars.


Toyota has also done this. What happened to the Supra, MR2, Celica, or even the slow and ugly(but good handling) MR-S? Not to mention that Toyota had and still makes AWD, higher hp versions of the Celica for Japan. If you think GM enthusiasts have things bad, try being a Toyota enthusiast. The only thing they have close to affordable performence is the IS300(much better buys for the money in that class) and the 180hp Matrix.

and imo we will have a gas crunch again it's just a matter of time. i mean look at the gas prices $2.40 for premium and it goes up from there. and almost everyone on this board has to use premium. and truthfully how many of you on this board has seen the gas prices and (said damn thats crazy how high prices are i won't be driving my car as much as i want to this summer)
However, very much unlike the 60s, today's cars get better gas mileage. Even the performance cars like GTO and Corvette.

How many of you on here have 6-speed LS1 F-bodies? My friend does and he's gotten over 30mpg highway (just leave it in 6th gear). Others have too. He can get into the 20s driving around...obviously not if he hammers it, but he can still do it.

Old muscle cars, you got FAR less MPG...so when gas prices went up, it made those cars hideously expensive to own. My friend has a nice 1975 Vette with a 350 that has about 200 horsepower and gets...10mpg. A far cry from today's cars.

UH... no. You quite genuinely sounded like someone saying "the Chevelle SS is the the car to have even though it's slower(in your mind)"

Maybe shoulda picked a different car... like a GTO for the value comparison. ;)


Dude I hate to break to you, but most 70 Chevelle's came with either a 300HP 350 or the 360HP 454. Those cars ran mid to low 14's and that was the 454 version. I didn't say the LS6 version now did I? :rolleyes:

The 60's were a differnet era in the now distant past.. You can't really compare the two..

BTW, how much did a top of a line 1970 Chevelle SS 454 with the LS6 cost back then? Compared to the base model?


Base Chevelle with the 300HP 350 went for around $2810 FOB. The top of the line Chevelle with the 450HP LS6 454 went for around $4500 depending on options. Ths SS 454 option was $500. The 454 LS6 option was another $263.00. $4500 for a car in 1970 was alot of money. :D

Dude I hate to break to you, but most 70 Chevelle's came with either a 300HP 350 or the 360HP 454. Those cars ran mid to low 14's and that was the 454 version. I didn't say the LS6 version now did I? :rolleyes:


Well in that case, I'd take the SRT-4.

But I think that some people sell the '60s muscle a little too short.
Chevelle 454SS - 13@110
Buick 455 GSX - low 13s@109-110
Corvette L88 - would run 11s out of the box with slicks at near 120mph

All the above will run nose to nose with a C6 or spank it. Bone stock.

Funny how all the FASTEST stuff was GM. :eek:

Well in that case, I'd take the SRT-4.

But I think that some people sell the '60s muscle a little too short.
Chevelle 454SS - 13@110
Buick 455 GSX - low 13s@109-110
Corvette L88 - would run 11s out of the box with slicks at near 120mph

All the above will run nose to nose with a C6 or spank it. Bone stock.

Funny how all the FASTEST stuff was GM. :eek:
what'd be the real test is to see how these cars would do with the advanced suspension and tires we have today..

what'd be the real test is to see how these cars would do with the advanced suspension and tires we have today..


I think that there are a number of factors that a lot of people forget about when they mention the old muscle cars, and they should not be discounted so quickly.

1) Yes, the horespower figures were listed as gross, and not SAE NET as they are today, so the effective rating of the horsepower of the older cars if SAE NET was used would be lower. BUT! What most people forget is the insurance companies were doing their best to end the musclecar era with either extremely high rates or declaring some vehicles NON-INSUREABLE. In addition, GM and other manufactureres had internal 10 pound per horsepower limits on engines placed in mid-size vehicles.The net effect of all of this was for vehicle manufactures to LIE about horsepower ratings. Do you REALLY think that a 429CID Ford Cobra-Jet with solid lifters and 11:1 Comp Ration only produced 335 HP??? When this engine was used just about STOCK in NASCAR? What about the 454 LS-7 Chevy? What about the 426 HEMI? So I would not get caught up in published HP figures.

2) In comparing horsepower figures, NO ONE EVER mentioned TORQUE! The 1970 GTO 455 H.O. engine, and the Buick 455 put out 510 Lb/Ft of torque! Most TURBO-DIESEL trucks don't put that much torque out! Torque is what gets you off of the line, not HP! [Although they are inversely proportional]

3) The comments about 0-60 times #1 are based on the use of bias-ply tires, unknown atmospheric conditions, etc...Also, in the 60's you could pick any arrangement of rear-ends, tranny's, fully-loaded or stripped vehicles for weight savings, so it is extremely difficult to compare anything apples to apples.

4) The "Two guys garage" program recently tested all of the "top" musclecars of the sixties: 0-60, braking, 1/4 mi, slalom, etc...Using factory stock vehicles, with factory stock tires, complete instrumented test, and all of them ran 7 second or less 0-60 times with 1/4 mi 13-14 sec.

5) What really made that era magical was the fact that the "average joe" could go to the dealership, and within his budget, special-order just about a "drag car" if he checked the right boxes on the order sheet. He had the full flexibility to buy a car EXACTLY the way he wanted it, EXACTLY within his price range. That absolutely does not exist today.

The concept that any four-banger vehicle (non ultra-specialty) could evenly match ANY of the superstars of the sixties is ridiculous.

Now, with all of that said, I personally believe that there is a new re-birth of the musclecar ear in front of our eyes...The HEMI, GTO's, Corvettes, and even SC V6's represent levels of power from the factory not seen in over 35 years! With all of the benefits of 35 years of tech. development: Better fuel economy, reliability, maint. free (respectively), etc...

These are definitely exciting times that we live in, but I do believe that we need to pay respect to our past!!
:bow: :bow: :bow:

Only in straight line accel, about a 1/4 mile at at time. Forget about anything that requires turning and braking.

Those numbers also sound more optimistic than what other sources report..

And all these cars were very expensive back in the day too.. definantly not your base versions. I wonder how much that would translate out in today's $.

BTW, 4 bangers that match performance - STI and Evo.. although they are relatively expensive.. there's also the Lotus Elise.. but thats in a whole other category.. ;)




Well in that case, I'd take the SRT-4.

But I think that some people sell the '60s muscle a little too short.
Chevelle 454SS - 13@110
Buick 455 GSX - low 13s@109-110
Corvette L88 - would run 11s out of the box with slicks at near 120mph

All the above will run nose to nose with a C6 or spank it. Bone stock.

Funny how all the FASTEST stuff was GM. :eek:

Well in that case, I'd take the SRT-4.

But I think that some people sell the '60s muscle a little too short.
Chevelle 454SS - 13@110
Buick 455 GSX - low 13s@109-110
Corvette L88 - would run 11s out of the box with slicks at near 120mph

All the above will run nose to nose with a C6 or spank it. Bone stock.

Funny how all the FASTEST stuff was GM. :eek:

I never sell the 60's muscle short. :D

And BTW: Even a 350 70 Chevelle is better than that econobox Neon. LOL!!

Don't forget the SSR. They are just about as fast as the last gen Lightning. A solid high 13's truck. TrailBlazer SS will be just as fast.

Uh... the Chevelle 454SS was a low 13sec car @ 110 on slippery tires, so I don't think there'll be any lightly modded SRT-4s (let alone a stock new one) outrunning it.
1)...In addition, GM and other manufactureres had internal 10 pound per horsepower limits on engines placed in mid-size vehicles.The net effect of all of this was for vehicle manufactures to LIE about horsepower ratings. Do you REALLY think that a 429CID Ford Cobra-Jet with solid lifters and 11:1 Comp Ration only produced 335 HP??? When this engine was used just about STOCK in NASCAR? What about the 454 LS-7 Chevy? What about the 426 HEMI? So I would not get caught up in published HP figures.

2) In comparing horsepower figures, NO ONE EVER mentioned TORQUE! The 1970 GTO 455 H.O. engine, and the Buick 455 put out 510 Lb/Ft of torque! Most TURBO-DIESEL trucks don't put that much torque out! Torque is what gets you off of the line, not HP! [Although they are inversely proportional]

3) The comments about 0-60 times #1 are based on the use of bias-ply tires, unknown atmospheric conditions, etc...Also, in the 60's you could pick any arrangement of rear-ends, tranny's, fully-loaded or stripped vehicles for weight savings, so it is extremely difficult to compare anything apples to apples.

4) The "Two guys garage" program recently tested all of the "top" musclecars of the sixties: 0-60, braking, 1/4 mi, slalom, etc...Using factory stock vehicles, with factory stock tires, complete instrumented test, and all of them ran 7 second or less 0-60 times with 1/4 mi 13-14 sec.

5) What really made that era magical was the fact that the "average joe" could go to the dealership, and within his budget, special-order just about a "drag car" if he checked the right boxes on the order sheet. He had the full flexibility to buy a car EXACTLY the way he wanted it, EXACTLY within his price range. That absolutely does not exist today.

The concept that any four-banger vehicle (non ultra-specialty) could evenly match ANY of the superstars of the sixties is ridiculous...

1. 429 Cobra Jet at 335hp would be around 200hp or less by today's standards. Even if actual hp was 400, that's still under 300 by today's standards.

2. You conviently skipped the fact that the way torque is rated today is also different than back then. A Buick with 510 lbs/ft of torque is under 400 by today's measurements. The former LS6 put out more torque.

3. A few years ago, a car mag (either Hot Rod or PHR) did a test on that very theory on bias ply vs modern tires. Though today's tires had superior lateral grip, the difference in accleration numbers weren't that great. A cars quarter time dropped no more than 3/4 to 1 second with modern tires. Safe to say that 0-60 times were slightly less than that.

4. Some selected "muscle car" times:
* 1966 GTO tripower 389: 0-60=6.5 1/4 mile= 14@105 (Car&Driver 3/66)

* 1967 Coronet R/T Hemi: 0-60=6.8 1/4 mile= 15@96 (Motor Trend 6/67)

* 1970 Buick GSX Stage1: 0-60=6.2 1/4 mile=14@103 (HiPerformance Cars 10/70)

* 1970 Chevelle SS LS6: 0-60=5.5 1/4 mile=13.2@106 with racing tires (MCR magazine )

* 1970 Mustang Boss 429: 1/4 mile=13.6@104 (SuperStock Magazine 6/69)

* 1970 Barracuda Hemi: 0-60=6.9 1/4 mile=13.7@101 (Motor Trend 9/69)


Some selected current cars:

*Neon SRT4: 0-60=5.6 1/4 mile=14.2@102 (Car&Driver 12/02)

* Z28 LS1: 0-60=5.2 1/4 mile=13.8@104 (Car&Driver 2/99)

* '05 Mustang GT: 0-60=5.1 1/4 mile=@13.8@103 (Car&Driver 1/05)

* '05 GTO: 0-60=4.8 1/4 mile=13.3@107 (Car&Driver 1/05)

* '05 Lancer EVO VII: 0-60=4.1 1/4 mile=12.7@109 (Car & Driver 4/05)

The Defense rests. ;)



Well in that case, I'd take the SRT-4.

But I think that some people sell the '60s muscle a little too short.
Chevelle 454SS - 13@110
Buick 455 GSX - low 13s@109-110
Corvette L88 - would run 11s out of the box with slicks at near 120mph

All the above will run nose to nose with a C6 or spank it. Bone stock.


Not selling the old cars short. They represented a special time in automotive history, but these cars are frequently oversold. Often the people post times on those cars are either exagerated or based on a car that was either modified or rebuilt with upgraded components.


Current Corvette C6 Convertible (hardly the quickest version) does 0-60 in 4.2 seconds and a quarter mile of 12.8 at 112 mph!

Compare this to the actual test times & speeds I posted above, as recorded by reputable car magazines of the day for the cars you mentioned in stock form.

Now.... which car is going to be spanked again? :lol:

Ah.. I don't know how old your are,
but I can ASSURE you that muscle cars of the time were NOT invisible.

Compare Pontiac Tempests to same year GTOs, or Chevelles to Chevelle SSs. ;)

Some of the ugliest vehicles ever are being proiduced now. I don't know which is uglier, the element or that new Scion piece of crap I keep seeing everywhere.

Element isn't part of this conversation. When we start talking about 60s era Corvair vans or VW vans of that era, then feel free to bring it in. Ditto Scions with Novas and Mavericks. :)

...But I admire the fact that you're trying to cheer us all up, Guy. :thumb:

That was my intentions.

With all this doom and gloom over no specific date for the next Camaro, GM on the ropes, and Zeta cancelled, it's easy to forget that we are still in a golden age of VERY quick cars & trucks unlike any ever in history.

Putting all cynicism aside, there's no denying that strictly on performance (leaving assorted peeves such as drive wheels, number of doors, or design aside), todays cars are in fact awesome. :bow:

1. 429 Cobra Jet at 335hp would be around 200hp or less by today's standards. Even if actual hp was 400, that's still under 300 by today's standards.Not so fast guion, you had better check your numbers before you walk that tall:

SAE Net Horspower
In 1972, American manufacturers phased in SAE net horsepower. This is the standard on which current American ratings are based. This rating is measured at the flywheel, on an engine dyno, but the engine is tested with all accessories installed, including a full exhaust system, all pumps, the alternator, the starter, and emissions controls. Both SAE net and SAE gross horsepower test procedures are documented in Society of Automotive Engineers standard J1349. Because SAE net is so common, this is the standard we will use to compare all others.

SAE Gross Horsepower
This is the old process that American manufacturers used as a guide for rating their cars. It was in place until 1971. SAE gross also measures horsepower at the flywheel, but with no accessories to bog it down. This is the bare engine with nothing but the absolute essentials attached to it; little more than a carb, fuel pump, oil pump, and water pump. Because the test equipment on the engine is not the same as in SAE net, it is impossible to provide a mathematical calculation between SAE net and SAE gross. As a general rule, however, SAE net tends to be approximately 80% of the value of SAE gross. SAE J245 and J1995 define this measurement.

Courtesy of:
http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/horsepwr.html

So, in short, there is no absolute way to adjust gross to net figures. And another thing to point out is the fact that the 60's-70's didn't have the five and six speed trannys that are now common place. Look at the 1/4 mile speeds to get the real picture of what these legends were/are made of.

I'm not arguing the fact that today's hot rods are faster than yesteryear's, I know thanks to having examples of both. But lets give credit were credit is due and realize the true power that these machines had and are really capable of.

Not so fast guion, you had better check your numbers before you walk that tall:

SAE Net Horspower
In 1972, American manufacturers phased in SAE net horsepower. This is the standard on which current American ratings are based. This rating is measured at the flywheel, on an engine dyno, but the engine is tested with all accessories installed, including a full exhaust system, all pumps, the alternator, the starter, and emissions controls. Both SAE net and SAE gross horsepower test procedures are documented in Society of Automotive Engineers standard J1349. Because SAE net is so common, this is the standard we will use to compare all others.

SAE Gross Horsepower
This is the old process that American manufacturers used as a guide for rating their cars. It was in place until 1971. SAE gross also measures horsepower at the flywheel, but with no accessories to bog it down. This is the bare engine with nothing but the absolute essentials attached to it; little more than a carb, fuel pump, oil pump, and water pump. Because the test equipment on the engine is not the same as in SAE net, it is impossible to provide a mathematical calculation between SAE net and SAE gross. As a general rule, however, SAE net tends to be approximately 80% of the value of SAE gross. SAE J245 and J1995 define this measurement.

Courtesy of:
http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/horsepwr.html

So, in short, there is no absolute way to adjust gross to net figures. And another thing to point out is the fact that the 60's-70's didn't have the five and six speed trannys that are now common place. Look at the 1/4 mile speeds to get the real picture of what these legends were/are made of.

I'm not arguing the fact that today's hot rods are faster than yesteryear's, I know thanks to having examples of both. But lets give credit were credit is due and realize the true power that these machines had and are really capable of.

"As a general rule, however, SAE net tends to be approximately 80% of the value of SAE gross. SAE J245 and J1995 define this measurement."
http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/horsepwr.html

"as a rough guideline, SAE net is about 70-85 percent of SAE gross "
http://www.streetracing.org/paris/dictionary/sro-dics.htm

Also, old "Gross" figures were done in ways where a manufacturer could up their horsepower claims, including cold tempreatures, no exhausts, no intake beyond the carburetor.

As mentioned in your post, current SAE estimates also include exhausts & intake tracks, as well as accessories emissions equptments, and everything else.

There is no way to exactly convert Gross to SAE Net, but the standard industry rule of thumb is 15 to 20%.

A '69 GTO Ram Air IV rated at 370hp (actually hp was around 420-450hp gross) would be advertised at around 296hp net (and actually put out 336-360hp net) using today's measurements.

Compare Pontiac Tempests to same year GTOs, or Chevelles to Chevelle SSs. ;)

Sir, I grew up during and drove those muscle cars. Trust me you knew a GTO or Chevelle when you saw them. Most were running cragars, jacked up in the rear with big L60's, and thrush mufflers. :D

There were some hot numbers that ran around our town, like the kid with the Black 68 Phase III Baldwin Motion Camaro that was basically the king of the street. That car ran 11's at York US 30 dragway with slicks!! There was another guy we ran around with that a 67 Mustang fastback, black with gold striping with a blown 350 Chevy engine in it. I myself had several cars thru the years, including a pretty fast 69 Formula S 383, 4 speed Barracuda.

Yet no one realizes that all of the tracks around back then were 1/8th mile! LOL

j/k - I'm sure there were fast cars back then, but you get jaded when every 50 something tells you how fast his 75 Corvette auto with 2:10 gears was. How it could outrun every rice burner on the streets today, AND all the new cars. Gimme a break. 60s cars had some grunt, 70s were stinky. Even the 60s though, you weren't gonna run a low to mid 12 and then hit the interstate and cruise at 120 plus the whole way home, maybe hitting 150 every now and then. Cars today are different animals.

"As a general rule, however, SAE net tends to be approximately 80% of the value of SAE gross. SAE J245 and J1995 define this measurement."
http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/horsepwr.html

"as a rough guideline, SAE net is about 70-85 percent of SAE gross "
http://www.streetracing.org/paris/dictionary/sro-dics.htm

Also, old "Gross" figures were done in ways where a manufacturer could up their horsepower claims, including cold tempreatures, no exhausts, no intake beyond the carburetor.

As mentioned in your post, current SAE estimates also include exhausts & intake tracks, as well as accessories emissions equptments, and everything else.

There is no way to exactly convert Gross to SAE Net, but the standard industry rule of thumb is 15 to 20%.
A '69 GTO Ram Air IV rated at 370hp (actually hp was around 420-450hp gross) would be advertised at around 296hp net (and actually put out 336-360hp net) using today's measurements.
Orange = what I typed, reworded.

Red = the important part. 336-360 net hp (as you stated), considering the technology of the day, was and still is impressive considering all the factors working against it (transmissions, tires, aerodynamics, lack of electronic fuel management systems, etc).

Sir, I grew up during and drove those muscle cars. Trust me you knew a GTO or Chevelle when you saw them. Most were running cragars, jacked up in the rear with big L60's, and thrush mufflers. :D

There were some hot numbers that ran around our town, like the kid with the Black 68 Phase III Baldwin Motion Camaro that was basically the king of the street. That car ran 11's at York US 30 dragway with slicks!! There was another guy we ran around with that a 67 Mustang fastback, black with gold striping with a blown 350 Chevy engine in it. I myself had several cars thru the years, including a pretty fast 69 Formula S 383, 4 speed Barracuda.

You know we are talking stock cars from the factory, not the used muscle cars that we gobbled up in the 1970s (because they were dirt cheap & couldn't sell during the fuel crunch) and modified, right?

I'm not exactly young either. ;)

You know we are talking stock cars from the factory, not the used muscle cars that we gobbled up in the 1970s (because they were dirt cheap & couldn't sell during the fuel crunch) and modified, right?

I'm not exactly young either. ;)

Yeah, I know. But trust me NOT all muscle cars were stock back in the day. How old are you? Evey buddy of mine that had a "muscle car" had theirs modified. I'm talking during the late 60's early 70's.

Orange = what I typed, reworded.

Red = the important part. 336-360 net hp (as you stated), considering the technology of the day, was and still is impressive considering all the factors working against it (transmissions, tires, aerodynamics, lack of electronic fuel management systems, etc).

Most certainly it was impressive in it's day. That's not the point I'm making.

The point is that even though things look bad al around today (no Camaro, FWD everywhere, etc...), when you look at what it costs to go fast and the variety of cars that can match or exceed the performance of 60s era muscle cars, it's easy to forget that for both acceleration and top speed maniacs, today is the best time ever. :)

Yeah, I know. But trust me NOT all muscle cars were stock back in the day. How old are you? Evey buddy of mine that had a "muscle car" had theirs modified. I'm talking during the late 60's early 70's.

I can strap a blower on a LT1 or bolt on some GT40 heads on a 5.0, or do mods on just about any new car out here. Hell, I can go and bolt in a new 502 GM engine in a 1977 Caprice. And???

Again, I feel you are missing the point here.

The issue and the thread is about stock cars from the factory. What manufacturers are doing today vs yesterday.

Muscle cars were created as a way for car companies that pulled out of racing to sell their performance parts to the general public. Back then voiding a 90 day warranty by putting on a factory hot rod part was no big deal if you had the extra cash. Engines back then had a lifespan of about 50,000 miles.

Today, not only are powertrains more powerful than back then, but they are warrantied for as long as 100,000 miles, typically live as long as 200,000 miles, get light years better fuel economy, run extremely clean (GM's LSx series of engines qualify as light emissions vehicles!), make more power per cubic inch, and you don't have to go back to the parts catologue to get advertized performance numbers (alot of performance numbers, including alot of the ones I have on file from various car mags at the time, were from "ringers".... in other words, they already had "mods" done to them).

Now THAT'S what's impressive! :D

BTW: I would tell you my age, but then I'd have to kill ya. ;)

As other people have mentioned, nobody had a bone stock muscle car. If old guys are talking about their old Chevelle, Nova, Cuda, etc. whooping up on everything, most likely stock magazine tests are completely irrelevant for the cars that they were driving.

Not so fast guion, you had better check your numbers before you walk that tall:

SAE Net Horspower
In 1972, American manufacturers phased in SAE net horsepower. This is the standard on which current American ratings are based. This rating is measured at the flywheel, on an engine dyno, but the engine is tested with all accessories installed, including a full exhaust system, all pumps, the alternator, the starter, and emissions controls. Both SAE net and SAE gross horsepower test procedures are documented in Society of Automotive Engineers standard J1349. Because SAE net is so common, this is the standard we will use to compare all others.

SAE Gross Horsepower
This is the old process that American manufacturers used as a guide for rating their cars. It was in place until 1971. SAE gross also measures horsepower at the flywheel, but with no accessories to bog it down. This is the bare engine with nothing but the absolute essentials attached to it; little more than a carb, fuel pump, oil pump, and water pump. Because the test equipment on the engine is not the same as in SAE net, it is impossible to provide a mathematical calculation between SAE net and SAE gross. As a general rule, however, SAE net tends to be approximately 80% of the value of SAE gross. SAE J245 and J1995 define this measurement.

Courtesy of:
http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/horsepwr.html

So, in short, there is no absolute way to adjust gross to net figures. And another thing to point out is the fact that the 60's-70's didn't have the five and six speed trannys that are now common place. Look at the 1/4 mile speeds to get the real picture of what these legends were/are made of.

I'm not arguing the fact that today's hot rods are faster than yesteryear's, I know thanks to having examples of both. But lets give credit were credit is due and realize the true power that these machines had and are really capable of.

Well said.

GuionM, the example of a 335 HP engine Gross Being Knocked down to 200 HP net is ludicrous. If there is over 135 HP of drag from an alternator, fan and waterpump (remember, most musclecars were stripped down with manual steering, brakes, no A/C like mine) [the rest of the items are negligible] then you could bet your bottom dollar that the big three would have been pouring millions of dollars in waterpump and alternator research.

Also, how did the measurement of torque change? Torque is the amount of rotational force around a rotating axis. Is there something I missed? 510 lb-ft is 510 lb-ft.

What's really incredible about that era is what the auto mfr's were able to do with the technology that they had. Four speed transmissions (not six or seven), carburators that do NOT infinitely adjust for varying atmospheric conditions so that on any given day it's always operating at a less than ideal scenario, crude engine timing and ignition systems, poor chassis and suspension setups for applying the power to the ground, skinny (by today's standards) tires which reduce contact area for power application....etc etc..

It's amazing that they performed as well as they did! Imagine what they would be capable of with 35 years of technology improvements!

So homage to the ones that created this revival that we are experiencing today should be padi. :cool:

Just think about where we could be if we did not have this history driving our future automotive products! :eek:

I can strap a blower on a LT1 or bolt on some GT40 heads on a 5.0, or do mods on just about any new car out here. Hell, I can go and bolt in a new 502 GM engine in a 1977 Caprice. And???

Again, I feel you are missing the point here.

The issue and the thread is about stock cars from the factory. What manufacturers are doing today vs yesterday.

Muscle cars were created as a way for car companies that pulled out of racing to sell their performance parts to the general public. Back then voiding a 90 day warranty by putting on a factory hot rod part was no big deal if you had the extra cash. Engines back then had a lifespan of about 50,000 miles.

Today, not only are powertrains more powerful than back then, but they are warrantied for as long as 100,000 miles, typically live as long as 200,000 miles, get light years better fuel economy, run extremely clean (GM's LSx series of engines qualify as light emissions vehicles!), make more power per cubic inch, and you don't have to go back to the parts catologue to get advertized performance numbers (alot of performance numbers, including alot of the ones I have on file from various car mags at the time, were from "ringers".... in other words, they already had "mods" done to them).

Now THAT'S what's impressive! :D

BTW: I would tell you my age, but then I'd have to kill ya. ;)

No argument here.

It's amazing that they performed as well as they did! Imagine what they would be capable of with 35 years of technology improvements!
You don't have to imagine. The cars of today are the 35 years of tech improvements.

guionM: 3. A few years ago, a car mag (either Hot Rod or PHR) did a test on that very theory on bias ply vs modern tires. Though today's tires had superior lateral grip, the difference in accleration numbers weren't that great. A cars quarter time dropped no more than 3/4 to 1 second with modern tires. Safe to say that 0-60 times were slightly less than that.
Just about every magazine and people that drove them back then agree, some of the Muscle cars back then were under-rated, all of the Big 3 had some....why...I dun know???
Just curious, did they use the "Skinny" stock sizes for those muscle cars or some adequate sized rubber??
I know my Dad bought a '68 SS396/325 Camaro, and that was the first thing to go. After just a couple of weeks he'd burned the crap out of those Red-Lines.. :D ...and switched to Tiger Paw SuperWide Ovals...big difference. Though I wasn't old enough to drive it, I hung on for dear life in the pass seat!..And don't forget how cheap and easy they were to modify, My Dad put in a Crane Cam, rejetted, and HD clutch set-up and could pull the tire up in first and clear ground at the 1-2 shift!...Although he said it'd run out of breath close to the 1320...maybe valve float?
(The factory cam went FLAT after only 6 months.. :( , clutches every 4-6 months too, and stated burning oil at 4 years old with 105K miles...but hea was hard on it too. :D )
Don't get me wrong, cars today are faster on average, but a few would still be contenders today too...

Some older cars were fast. but alot of cars now would put a hurtin on cars from the 60's (stock for stock) and some people have said (most older cars weren't stock) well i hate to tell you this ,but most everybody on this board aren't stock.

And i don't know about anybody else on this board but if i had a dollar for every time somebody came up to me and said (my 455,428,389,350,302,454,427429 cu in mustang,camaro,chevelle,gto,cuda,charger would put a wooping on your computer controlled car anyday) so if anything i'd say that newer cars don't get the credit they deserve.

You don't have to imagine. The cars of today are the 35 years of tech improvements.


I probably should have been more specific. The other thing that made that era so magical was the "limitless" means of producing "supercars". The big three on more than one occasion, released limited-edition nascar racing engines into regular production to meet nascar regulations. Back then, not only did the racers use stock production car bodies, but modified versions of stock engines as well. Part of the regulations called for those bodies & engines be a "production" model that the public could order [min. run of 500 units].

Can you imagine having the ability to order a nascar-ready vehicle from your local Ford dealership?

Can you imagine having 650+ HP [with 35 years of racing technology improvements] in your RWD Chevy Monte Carlo, with all of the convienences of Fuel Injection, modern suspension, etc... :) :) :)

Can you imagine having 650+ HP [with 35 years of racing technology improvements] in your RWD Chevy Monte Carlo, with all of the convienences of Fuel Injection, modern suspension, etc... :) :) :)
well, in the rwd camaro, yes
the 2002 zl1 phase III by gmmg
but that is just a wee bit too much for me to spend :p

Gamely reading in here to be sure! :D

My .02....

Cars today are faster, more efficient, easier to maintain, and more reliable. PERIOD.

BUT - gone at the expense of the benefits noted above are the following...
*Lighting up the rears at a whim.
*MANDATORY throttle-steering in curves because the front tires were plows on grease.
*The feel of the seat back pushing your body forward under acceleration. (can't explain it really, but it is different in the old cars than today's)
*The smell of gas-rich exhaust fumes coming into the cockpit when you nail it.
*Wondering if you should REALLY take it from 125 to 140mph because the tires are walking the car from line to line! (engine says YES, but brain says no!) :D
*Actually feeling the engine shake the car whole while idling at the light. :bow:
*Knowing that you can hammer it, and nothing will break.
*Wondering if the drums will take just one more 100mph+ run...
*Finding 10-15hp by tinkering with a wrench and a vacuum gage. :(
*Being able to buy a set of tires (that FIT) at any tire place for $200 or less/set.
*actually knowing what all the stuff under the hood does.

I dunno... I guess the fast cars I was exposed to had their own personalities, and I loved them for it. As somebody who loves to tinker/play with cars, I enjoy(ed) setting the timing, adjusting the carb, and such. I love the occasional whiff of rich exhaust when you dump the pedal and the front left fender starts to rise more than the right one. I actually enjoy the small uncertainty of a hard corner in a car with a 60/40 ratio... it defines who has got real balls driving a car... don't be afraid of the gas pedal, just learn how and when to use it!

So in this light - YES, I love my late-model 5.0 (an image of it (http://www.yadtel.net/~gcreed1/pics/89a.jpg)) with it's 27mpg average, comfort, 6-way seats, Stereo, and trouble-free service. But I have an equal amount of love for my 351C Mach 1 that skins the hides during a 55mph pass on a 2-lane road and scares the sh1+ out of me when trying to bring it down from 140mph. My Mach 1 (http://www.yadtel.net/~gcreed1/pics/71b.jpg) and it's built 351 Cleveland (http://www.yadtel.net/~gcreed1/pics/71e.jpg)

So it's impossible for me to say one era is better than the other.
Each offers it's own benefits and drawbacks and you can't substitute one for the other IMO. You just have to find what suits you best, and enjoy it. :bow:

I will close by saying that back in 1985, I never thought I would see the day of a 325hp Mustang from the factory. After the '97 Cobras came along, I never thought 350 would fall. After the 2000 Cobra R, I was certain we had seen the pinnacle of Mustang performance. Then the 2003 Cobra busts 390hp. Now I am staring down the barrel of a 470hp Cobra, straight from the factory with an easily-attainable 600 hp with pulley and chip. UNREAL. I know am older and wiser, and I am more reluctant to say what I will, and will never, see. So regardless of what the economy and government bring forth to the ponycar market in the near future, it's been a heck of a ride thusfar! I can only hope we keep getting better from here.

Can you imagine having the ability to order a nascar-ready vehicle from your local Ford dealership?
No I can't imagine that. Why would anyone want a lead only carbed dino-motor-saurus? Not to mention the fact that a NASCAR ready vehicle would never be legal for the street since that league has nothing to do with stock cars or factory performance.

an you imagine having 650+ HP [with 35 years of racing technology improvements] in your RWD Chevy Monte Carlo, with all of the convienences of Fuel Injection, modern suspension, etc...
That would be the Z06 or Blue Devil.

I definitely did not read this entire post but i agree and disagree.

YES, performance numbers of todays performance cars top those of back in the day. BUT

I disagree on another level:

-first, Back then, fast cars were about the only type of cool ride besides a truck. No one was driving around in toasters (xb's) thinking they were cool. Vanagons were around, but they were cool for a different reason ;) ;)

-second, I think that considering the muscle car era was nearly 40 years ago, the speed/technology ratio was a lot higher than then. Todays cars may be faster, but i think they should be even faster yet. I really dont see the 'achievement' in a new car being faster than a car from 35 years ago :confused: It better be faster.

-third, I dont care how many people try and argue it, im CONVINCED performance was cheaper back in the day. Sure some of you can say you lived in the day and disagree, but i have several relatives including my father who lived then too. being that i know them personally and many of them still have their cars, im more apt to go by their word. My reasoning:first off, it definitely is not because of inflation like everyone thinks. that aside, think about it, gas not only was extremely cheap, 110 octane gas was extremely cheap. Also, insurance companies were CLUELESS until 1970 or so. That means that owning and driving a fast car would be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper. In my case the insurance prices on my car was just as much of a factor in buying one as the price of the car. Also, when buying new cars, you werent paying for ANY emissions technology. None. Also, impact or safety technology OR testing. Someone has to pay for all of todays crash tests, and you better believe its the customer. Back then they equipped cars with seatbelts and called it a day. much, much cheaper. Also, optioning. You ordered each and every option you wanted. There were none of those ripoff 'packages' were stuck with today.

-fourth, moddability. Everyone here is stuck on ragging on how slow muscle cars were in stock form. so what? it would be a rare ocasion to race a stock muscle car down to the crappy tires back in the day. Ever look at pictures of old junkyards? I dont think ive seen a one retired on its factory redlines. A large percent of them are sitting there on rotted out 11" slicks. Tires alone chopped stock times off significantly. The mod business was also booming, and ease of moddibility (workable engine bays anyone) was at a peak.

-Lastly, variety. Today imports make up 80% or more of the recreational car industry. Back then each american name had 6 or so go-fast models in a given year, not 2, or 3 that are so-so.

So yes, we have faster cars today... but am i the only one that doesnt find that impressive :confused: I just feel that if you could ratio an era to performance, the 60s and 70s still have today beat even though todays cars are faster.

by all means, tear me to pieces :)

No I can't imagine that. Why would anyone want a lead only carbed dino-motor-saurus? One drive in one and you'd know why... :D When you feel the seat fold around you as your body sinks deep into it, and you try to catch your breath b/c it feels like you chest is caving in!.. :cool: And a roar that would drown out a T-Rex!...



Not to mention the fact that a NASCAR ready vehicle would never be legal for the street since that league has nothing to do with stock cars or factory performance.Back in those days, NASCAR was a "STOCK CAR" racing circuit. The point was, if they wanted the car to run in "Stock Car"(NASCAR) they had to make 500 pieces of street legal versions(headlights, bumpers etc,)with say with 400hp+ !...

Don't forget the SSR. They are just about as fast as the last gen Lightning. A solid high 13's truck. TrailBlazer SS will be just as fast.
Now all we need is for any one of those trash ragzines to print that, and the SSR's might be flyin' off dealer lots. :p But I'm sure they won't. :mad: Bums!

well, in the rwd camaro, yes
the 2002 zl1 phase III by gmmg
but that is just a wee bit too much for me to spend :p
DIY. If they can do it so can I. I bet I could do it for less than 95 large. Build a similar type of stroker LS1 that is. One of these days! ;)

[QUOTE=90rocz]One drive in one and you'd know why... :D When you feel the seat fold around you as your body sinks deep into it, and you try to catch your breath b/c it feels like you chest is caving in!.. :cool: And a roar that would drown out a T-Rex!...QUOTE]

AMEN TO THAT!!! :bow:

I am not knocking on the younger crowd in here, because I know that you have some very fast cars - faster than the old dinosaurs in many cases.

BUT - if you guys have never been blessed with a ride in a big-block car from the 60's, or a hi-po middleweight from the early 70's... well, you are just missing out on something awesome. Words can't describe it. I'll say this much, all these wealthy people plopping $50k to $300k for the musclecars at Barrett-Jackson and Kruse Auctions are doing it for a reason, and it isn't the comfort or Nav systems. ;)
Leno knows what "the feel" is. So does Steve Tyler.

The old cars are just BRUTAL. There's no "system" to save your a55 when you go into a curve too fast. They don't manage your traction for you. They don't cradle your a55 in a seat that wraps around 1/2 of your leg and back - instead you slide on the vinyl. The steering wheels are not soft leather that grabs you back and holds you, they are hard plastic or wood, and they are relatively tiny. The brakes work... barely... sometimes... when you are trying to slow the dino down from triple digits, I usually get back down to around 30-40mph before the fade starts showing up!
I guess what I'm saying is that you are more "a part of the car" than in todays models - I can darn sure gurantee you are a busier person in an old musclecar, and you feel like you have done something after some hard driving! I lack the same feeling after an autoX or hard drive in a late model car - not that it's not fun, but it's just different.

Lastly, I am a Mechanical Engineer, well-versed in the equations and laws of physics, so I know what acceleration is all about. BUT FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I can't explain why the feeling of acceleration in an old musclecar feels so much more profound than it does in a comparably fast late-model car. In an old musclecar, the torque just seems to smack you in the a55 - you feel it. Like the guys were saying above about the seat wrapping around you. It's glorious, and it seems to never stop... from 1000rpm to wherever the rev limiter is set it just pounds on you.
The ONLY car since 1973 that I have felt a vaguely similar feel in is the Thunderbird SC. It has a similar feel, but is still subdued due to the plush seating and newer suspension/tire combo. The Regal GN has the same kind of feeling, but it too is smoother and less harsh than the old cars. The old cars simply put forces on your body that make me think of being thrown from a slingshot. :bow:

Again, if you've never been fortunate enough to ride in a 454 SS Chevelle, a big block Camaro SS, a Boss 429, a Thunderbolt, a Seven-Litre Galaxy, a Hemi-Cuda, a Judge, or something along these lines - MAKE IT HAPPEN. Guys are eager to show off their cars, just ask 'em. I love to give people rides in mine, and they ALWAYS get out smiling and babbling about it. You'll see. :D

Well said. Very well said.

Back in those days, NASCAR was a "STOCK CAR" racing circuit. The point was, if they wanted the car to run in "Stock Car"(NASCAR) they had to make 500 pieces of street legal versions(headlights, bumpers etc,)with say with 400hp+ !...
That was actually my point as to why you'd never see a version of a "stock car" for sale to the general public. It isn't possible today. You can blamethe league for trying to be WWE instead of a real racing league. Back in the day they sold these almost race cars because they had to in order to compete. Why sell them now?

Nostalgia aside, I submit that an old car with a big cube motor with the same power cuve as a modern car with a small motor would feel the same, except that the chasis and suspension engineering back in the day was much less refined than it is now.

And chassis's can be upgrade on the old muscle cars. I've seen some that are pushing almost .8gs laterally. So you get the best of both worlds. Looks, power and handling. :D

They are called G-machines.


http://www.pro-touring.com/featured_cars/Firebird/Pete_Tessier_78_Trans%20Am/t3_small.jpg

Again, if you've never been fortunate enough to ride in a 454 SS Chevelle, a big block Camaro SS, a Boss 429, a Thunderbolt, a Seven-Litre Galaxy, a Hemi-Cuda, a Judge, or something along these lines - MAKE IT HAPPEN. You'll see. :D

It boils down to this: Old cars are women. New cars are RealDolls.

One has all the beauty, flaws, unpredictability, passion, fickleness, excitement, and PERSONALITY of a real woman.

The other may have perfect smooth curves and get the job done, but it's a lot less fun.

[QUOTE=90rocz]
Lastly, I am a Mechanical Engineer, well-versed in the equations and laws of physics, so I know what acceleration is all about. BUT FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I can't explain why the feeling of acceleration in an old musclecar feels so much more profound than it does in a comparably fast late-model car. In an old musclecar, the torque just seems to smack you in the a55 - you feel it. Like the guys were saying above about the seat wrapping around you. It's glorious, and it seems to never stop... from 1000rpm to wherever the rev limiter is set it just pounds on you.
The ONLY car since 1973 that I have felt a vaguely similar feel in is the Thunderbird SC. It has a similar feel, but is still subdued due to the plush seating and newer suspension/tire combo. The Regal GN has the same kind of feeling, but it too is smoother and less harsh than the old cars. The old cars simply put forces on your body that make me think of being thrown from a slingshot. :bow:


I'm an ME too. The only thing I can come up with is NVH. The older cars definately deliver the experience of accelerating more than the newer ones. We can argue which generation was better till the end of time because you can make great cases for both times. But I think Guy's message was just it's a good time to be a performance enthusiast. (Now if they would only bring back the camaro ;) )

Awesome posts ProudPony. :bow:

Today's "muscle cars" are more technologically advanced yes,but they are no where near as ballsy,fun or cool to own as it was then.I mean what is exactly are the cool cars that are majorily not a joke amongst car enthusiasts or is some type of econo looking car that has a 4cyl w/factory power adder to go fast.Also as far as what was available back then compared to now is no comparison.There was so much more available back then it was rediculous.The only cool ones,which are available today,that I can think of are the:corvette,magnum,SRT10,Viper,Lightning,some Cadillacs,Nissan 350Z,Acura NSX,SSR and the new mustang with all of its' models.BUT!Even half of those aren't even affordable to everyone.The rest,not listed, are just bastardizations of what was once an awesome car.